I am not saying this to offend anyone, nickagenta, Indeed, interceptor. etc. I am just saying this honestly.

1st - I am not a member of the NRA... I don't need to be a member of any club especially a club that lobby's an already corrupt and totally inept government.

I do own guns...they have all been given to me as gifts in the past.

I know how to shoot them as I grew up in the Ozarks and was surrounded by hunters.

I don't hunt because I don't like killing anything for sport and I don't really care for the taste of most wild game.

If I had to survive or lived in Alaska in the wild I would have no problem killing an mammal or fish to survive.

If my home was invaded (as is happening more and more in Kansas so it must be happening in bigger cities) I would have absolutely no issue in using one of my guns to try and stop the invader. I could fail but I would want to try and I should have that right.

I think there are basically two types of people politically in this current events forum (to simplify my post) First, those who look to the government to solve many problems that may or have already come into existence, or to address problems that may arise in the future that they would like some form of government to fix or regulate. The second group are those who generally think government should be severely limited to a few tasks as outlined by the constitution.

Without trying to sound to conspiratorial I simply have never seen government employees, government institutions, or government programs ever produce anything that impressed me or come up with solutions that actually solved a problem. I have seem them come with programs, regulations and spending bills that generally fail and overregulate the common citizen or business.

Why would I trust the government to not screw up and over regulate and over spend and become even more bloated on the issue of gun control?

Government institutions, regulations and government people just can't seem to do anything that works in my opinion.

There are other layers of gun control that could be discussed but on the first layer is that I do not trust the government n any level to act smart, efficient, creatively or honestly and that would include gun control.

I respect that. And while I do not know you or where you have lived, you did say you live in kansas and was from the Ozarks. Sp perhaps you haven't a lot of experience with good government.

I will say that most die hard conservative areas of the country that have as little government as possible are also the areas with the highest rate of poverty, the poorest living conditions, and the worst educational systems. They also have the most common and open forms of racial, sexual, religious and sexual preference bias.

I can understand why if you only lived in areas like these that you would feel the way you do about government. I don't necessarily trust government. But I trust big business exponentially less.

Companies selling guns make obscene profits. The NRA is their largest marketing firm. They have generations of Americans convinced guns are not bad, If I am going to trust anyone, I will trust the US government a lot more than the NRA and the weapons manufacturers they lobby for.

No insult intended either. Just the way I view things.

BTW, I am a fairly fiscal conservative. I gotta believe the reduction in gun injuries, gun death, gun violence, etc. would over a half century save this country tons of money and more than make up for the government spending needed to make happen everything I have suggested, even a complete repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

I am not saying this to offend anyone, nickagenta, Indeed, interceptor. etc. I am just saying this honestly.

I don't get offended unless people insult me.

Quote

Without trying to sound to conspiratorial I simply have never seen government employees, government institutions, or government programs ever produce anything that impressed me or come up with solutions that actually solved a problem. I have seem them come with programs, regulations and spending bills that generally fail and overregulate the common citizen or business.

I don't see how you can possibly square this. There are millions of government employees. If you haven't met an exceptional one, I'd suspect either confirmation bias, or lack of exposure. It's one thing to be skeptical of government, but to go to the extreme and not even concede the smallest point in favor of government intervention?

It's easy to bag on programs and regulations when you compare them against perfection that doesn't exist in nature. The reality is, the alternative often times is just as good (bad) or non-existent. Do you like wifi? Cell phones? Without regulation of the spectrum, it would be a Wild Wild West of uselessness.

If you want an example of a successful government program, I give you the FDIC.

Quote

Why would I trust the government to not screw up and over regulate and over spend and become even more bloated on the issue of gun control?

Nobody else can do it but the government. Gun control via the honor system doesn't really work.

This isn't to suggest that government is the answer everywhere, but it's the best option for some things. I don't want a private military, for example.

so in 2009 the FDIC went to the well (the US Treasury) for more money to shore up commercial banks who fail. This is of course for the purpose of "protecting depositors". As more banks failed in 2008 the FDIC was running out of money. While an honorable thing (protect depositors from poorly run banks) in all reality the FDIC had to be bailed out as a private agency of the government. So where did the Treasury get the money? Well the Federal Reserve prints it of course ...Now we all know the Federal Reserve is NOT owned by the Federal Government but rather by a consortium of private bankers who control essentially our supply of money in this country. Now of course this currency they control is a fiat currency backed by nothing except a promise. A promise from who? The government!! The same government who is 16 trillion dollars in debt and who can't stop spending, borrowing and propping things up they created or want to control. So..... we (the people who work) pay interest on that debt and new spending programs via taxes.... and therefore taxes need to be raised etc.. etc. because the government needs more money to pay to monitor even more regulations and to set up more programs that won't work. and so on

You cannot borrow your way into safety or prosperity. and you can't print enough money to keep things like the FDIC solvent. At some point a broke government can't continue (think Greece on a much bigger scale) and thing start to implode and more control is needed by a military type force to keep things from chaos. What eventually emerges from a police state is some sort of chapter from George Orwell's "1984" It is possible this could happen sooner rather than later...If things get that bad in my lifetime then having a few guns won't help protect me from a "Big Brother" government. In the meantime I want to be armed for a variety of reasons and won't acquiesce my constitutional right to have them in my home.

Nickagenta ...thank you for your reply but unintentionally it was a bit insulting.

Quote

I respect that. And while I do not know you or where you have lived, you did say you live in kansas and was from the Ozarks. Sp perhaps you haven't a lot of experience with good government.

Kansas state government works much better than the Federal government you seem to value so much (not a high bar to jump over I know) This better performance is from a fiscal standpoint so you should perhaps check that out if you so desire.

Kansas is not a poverty state by any stretch of the imagination. A majority of Kansas citizens do quite well. I am proud to say Kansas recently turned down Federal government assistance to jumpstart Obamacare in Kansas. This money we turned down was to help start a Health Care Exchange ....As a related side note I was invited to be a member of the Kansas committee to investigate the formation of a state based and state run health care exchange due to my 20 + years in health care. It was a disaster from the start as state government employees having a limited understanding of real health care issues immediately got mired down in their inefficient world of regulation, politics and just ignorance on how to get something up and running effectively. Lots and lots of meetings and zero results. Spent lots of taxpayer money though.

Trust me, Nickagenta I have had plenty of exposure to government but none of it impressive.

Earlier in my career I was a lead finance negotiator for Boeing (in Kansas) and I negotiated (as part of team) with the Air Force on the B1-Bomber Program and the B-52 OAS/CMI program. In this job I also dealt extensively with the Governments military auditing contracting agency - the DCAA ( Defense Contract Audit Agency).

I was often quoted as saying (as were others) that the only entity who I saw who were lass competent in doing things efficiently than Boeing in building military airplanes was the Air Force and the DCAA in trying to say what they really wanted and needed and how they should be built. They (Air Force negotiators and DCAA) wasted more time changing their mind and instituted more stupid regulations than Boeing could keep up with. This is why you end up with the famous $2,000 toilet seats you hear about.

So I have lots of experience and exposure with government.

Finally my father worked for the government for many years and retired early at the age 47. Why? Because they were driving him nuts in how he did his job of designing, redesigning, and setting up Post Offices across the midwest in the 1960's. The good thing is that they paid him so well and gave him such good retirement benefits that he could retire at 47. He retired to the Ozarks built a new house on a beautiful lake and worked part time to supplement his early retirement income provided by the government at taxpayer expense. And yes we all wore shoes and we didn;t make moonshine.

In retrospect the government should never have provided my father such great retirement health care and benefits for an early retirement. But they waste money like this everyday and in a billion/trillion ways different ways.

I will never convince either one of you about the value of limited government. To me, something other than a very limited small government is a direct path to socialism. You of course can't convince me of your beliefs in so much faith in government including the government taking more and more control of things like guns....not sure why I even came in here to bother and discuss... waste of time ....thank you though

Those articles are both old (2009) and beside the point. The success of the FDIC is not the forever-solvency of the organization as an independent corporation in the aftermath of a financial crisis (although one notes that it did fine anyway): the success is that no insured depositor has lost a single red cent as a result of a bank failure in the entire 77+ year history of the organization.

Whatever quibbles one may have with the FDIC, if you don't consider that a success, or a problem solved, I'd say that your bar is so high as to be unrealistic.

Quote

I will never convince either one of you about the value of limited government. To me, something other than a very limited small government is a direct path to socialism. You of course can't convince me of your beliefs in so much faith in government including the government taking more and more control of things like guns....not sure why I even came in here to bother and discuss... waste of time ....thank you though

This is not a discussion. You ignored the point that I made, went on a tangential rant about federal spending, and assumed things about my position on things that aren't true. Not a way to have a conversation about anything.

so in 2009 the FDIC went to the well (the US Treasury) for more money to shore up commercial banks who fail. This is of course for the purpose of "protecting depositors". As more banks failed in 2008 the FDIC was running out of money. While an honorable thing (protect depositors from poorly run banks) in all reality the FDIC had to be bailed out as a private agency of the government. So where did the Treasury get the money? Well the Federal Reserve prints it of course ...Now we all know the Federal Reserve is NOT owned by the Federal Government but rather by a consortium of private bankers who control essentially our supply of money in this country. Now of course this currency they control is a fiat currency backed by nothing except a promise. A promise for who? The government!! The same government who in 16 trillion dollars in debt and who can't stop spending, borrowing and propping things up they created or want to control. So..... we (the people who work) pay interest on that debt and new spending programs via taxes.... and therefore taxes need to be raised etc.. etc. because the government needs more money to pay to monitor even more regulations and to set up more programs that won't work. and so on

You cannot borrow your way into safety or prosperity. and you can't print enough money to keep things like the FDIC solvent. At some point a broke government can't continue (think Greece on a much bigger scale) and thing start to implode and more control is needed by a military type force to keep things from chaos. What eventually emerges from a police state is some sort of chapter from George Orwell's "1984" It is possible this could happen sooner rather than later...If things get that bad in my lifetime then having a few guns won't help protect me from a "Big Brother" government. In the meantime I want to be armed for a variety of reasons and won't acquiesce my constitutional right to have them in my home.

Nickagenta ...thank you for your reply but unintentionally it was a bit insulting.

Quote

I respect that. And while I do not know you or where you have lived, you did say you live in kansas and was from the Ozarks. Sp perhaps you haven't a lot of experience with good government.

Kansas state government works much better than the Federal government you seem to value so much (not a high bar to jump over I know) This better performance is from a fiscal standpoint so you should perhaps check that out if you so desire.

Kansas is not a poverty state by any stretch of the imagination. A majority of Kansas citizens do quite well. I am proud to say Kansas recently turned down Federal government assistance to jumpstart Obamacare in Kansas. This money we turned down was to help start a Health Care Exchange ....As a related side note I was invited to be a member of the Kansas committee to investigate the formation of a state based and state run health care exchange due to my 20 + years in health care. It was a disaster from the start as state government employees having a limited understanding of real health care issues immediately got mired down in their inefficient world of regulation, politics and just ignorance on how to get something up and running effectively. Lots and lots of meetings and zero results. Spent lots of taxpayer money though.

Trust me, Nickagenta I have had plenty of exposure to government but none of it impressive.

Earlier in my career I was a lead finance negotiator for Boeing (in Kansas) and I negotiated (as part of team) with the Air Force on the B1-Bomber Program and the B-52 OAS/CMI program. In this job I also dealt extensively with the Governments military auditing contracting agency - the DCAA ( Defense Contract Audit Agency).

I was often quoted as saying (as were others) that the only entity who I saw who were lass competent in doing things efficiently than Boeing in building military airplanes was the Air Force and the DCAA in trying to say what they really wanted and needed and how they should be built. They (Air Force negotiators and DCAA) wasted more time changing their mind and instituted more stupid regulations than Boeing could keep up with. This is why you end up with the famous $2,000 toilet seats you hear about.

So I have lots of experience and exposure with government.

Finally my father worked for the government for many years and retired early at the age 47. Why? Because they were driving him nuts in how he did his job of designing, redesigning, and setting up Post Offices across the midwest in the 1960's. The good thing is that they paid him so well and gave him such good retirement benefits that he could retire at 47. He retired to the Ozarks built a new house on a beautiful lake and worked part time to supplement his early retirement income provided by the government at taxpayer expense. And yes we all wore shoes and we didn;t make moonshine.

In retrospect the government should never have provided my father such great retirement health care and benefits for an early retirement. But they waste money like this everyday and in a billion/trillion ways different ways.

I will never convince either one of you about the value of limited government. To me, something other than a very limited small government is a direct path to socialism. You of course can't convince me of your beliefs in so much faith in government including the government taking more and more control of things like guns....not sure why I even came in here to bother and discuss... waste of time ....thank you though

Edit: I am not a gun owner and not a member of the NRA. I have never entertained the thought of buying a firearm and I can count on one hand how many people I know who own guns (2)....I am, however seriously considering to go out and purchase a firearm or 2.

Edit: I am not a gun owner and not a member of the NRA. I have never entertained the thought of buying a firearm and I can count on one hand how many people I know who own guns (2)....I am, however seriously considering to go out and purchase a firearm or 2.

Ben Swann in no way destroys the anti-gun argument in that piece. There's a distinction that the clip misses; Morgan--and others--aren't claiming that less guns will equal less crime, what they argue is that less guns could well equal less murder. Swann talks a lot about violent crime, but I suggest that there is a lot of violent crime that does not come close to being as devastating as murder.

so in 2009 the FDIC went to the well (the US Treasury) for more money to shore up commercial banks who fail. This is of course for the purpose of "protecting depositors". As more banks failed in 2008 the FDIC was running out of money. While an honorable thing (protect depositors from poorly run banks) in all reality the FDIC had to be bailed out as a private agency of the government. So where did the Treasury get the money? Well the Federal Reserve prints it of course ...Now we all know the Federal Reserve is NOT owned by the Federal Government but rather by a consortium of private bankers who control essentially our supply of money in this country. Now of course this currency they control is a fiat currency backed by nothing except a promise. A promise from who? The government!! The same government who is 16 trillion dollars in debt and who can't stop spending, borrowing and propping things up they created or want to control. So..... we (the people who work) pay interest on that debt and new spending programs via taxes.... and therefore taxes need to be raised etc.. etc. because the government needs more money to pay to monitor even more regulations and to set up more programs that won't work. and so on

You cannot borrow your way into safety or prosperity. and you can't print enough money to keep things like the FDIC solvent. At some point a broke government can't continue (think Greece on a much bigger scale) and thing start to implode and more control is needed by a military type force to keep things from chaos. What eventually emerges from a police state is some sort of chapter from George Orwell's "1984" It is possible this could happen sooner rather than later...If things get that bad in my lifetime then having a few guns won't help protect me from a "Big Brother" government. In the meantime I want to be armed for a variety of reasons and won't acquiesce my constitutional right to have them in my home.

Nickagenta ...thank you for your reply but unintentionally it was a bit insulting.

Quote

I respect that. And while I do not know you or where you have lived, you did say you live in kansas and was from the Ozarks. Sp perhaps you haven't a lot of experience with good government.

Kansas state government works much better than the Federal government you seem to value so much (not a high bar to jump over I know) This better performance is from a fiscal standpoint so you should perhaps check that out if you so desire.

Kansas is not a poverty state by any stretch of the imagination. A majority of Kansas citizens do quite well. I am proud to say Kansas recently turned down Federal government assistance to jumpstart Obamacare in Kansas. This money we turned down was to help start a Health Care Exchange ....As a related side note I was invited to be a member of the Kansas committee to investigate the formation of a state based and state run health care exchange due to my 20 + years in health care. It was a disaster from the start as state government employees having a limited understanding of real health care issues immediately got mired down in their inefficient world of regulation, politics and just ignorance on how to get something up and running effectively. Lots and lots of meetings and zero results. Spent lots of taxpayer money though.

Trust me, Nickagenta I have had plenty of exposure to government but none of it impressive.

Earlier in my career I was a lead finance negotiator for Boeing (in Kansas) and I negotiated (as part of team) with the Air Force on the B1-Bomber Program and the B-52 OAS/CMI program. In this job I also dealt extensively with the Governments military auditing contracting agency - the DCAA ( Defense Contract Audit Agency).

I was often quoted as saying (as were others) that the only entity who I saw who were lass competent in doing things efficiently than Boeing in building military airplanes was the Air Force and the DCAA in trying to say what they really wanted and needed and how they should be built. They (Air Force negotiators and DCAA) wasted more time changing their mind and instituted more stupid regulations than Boeing could keep up with. This is why you end up with the famous $2,000 toilet seats you hear about.

So I have lots of experience and exposure with government.

Finally my father worked for the government for many years and retired early at the age 47. Why? Because they were driving him nuts in how he did his job of designing, redesigning, and setting up Post Offices across the midwest in the 1960's. The good thing is that they paid him so well and gave him such good retirement benefits that he could retire at 47. He retired to the Ozarks built a new house on a beautiful lake and worked part time to supplement his early retirement income provided by the government at taxpayer expense. And yes we all wore shoes and we didn;t make moonshine.

In retrospect the government should never have provided my father such great retirement health care and benefits for an early retirement. But they waste money like this everyday and in a billion/trillion ways different ways.

I will never convince either one of you about the value of limited government. To me, something other than a very limited small government is a direct path to socialism. You of course can't convince me of your beliefs in so much faith in government including the government taking more and more control of things like guns....not sure why I even came in here to bother and discuss... waste of time ....thank you though

Well I completely apologize as it was never my intent to insult you. Obviously from your experience, government hasn't been something you feel you can trust. It's inefficiency bothers you. I can understand that. It bothers me as well.

But I trust government more than big business. The government, though frustratingly inefficient and maddening in the way they operate, i find, is still more trustworthy than big business and has the best interest of all Americans in mind and not just those they employ or are invested in their company.

I too have had a lot of experience in government. And I have seen many poor children get excellent public schools educations and go on to be successful people. I have seen the government provide scholarships and grants to go to further their education and become doctors and lawyers and engineers and other jobs that help propel this great society we have. I have seen the government provide grants to law enforcement to reduce domestic violence and rape, two of the most under reported and heinous crimes there are.

I don't like big or small government and prefer efficient government. And while I think the government has their collective heads stuck up their collective asses way too often, I still trust our government to make our way of life and society better.

Therefore, I would trust them in controlling guns. Every state has a registry or department of motor vehicles. Every state, city, town and county has a tax collection office. These areas are pretty efficient along with law enforcement, at regulating what they need to, keeping track of data and enforcing and collecting the money needed.

If they can handle keeping track of cars and taxes, they can handle keeping track of guns.

so in 2009 the FDIC went to the well (the US Treasury) for more money to shore up commercial banks who fail. This is of course for the purpose of "protecting depositors". As more banks failed in 2008 the FDIC was running out of money. While an honorable thing (protect depositors from poorly run banks) in all reality the FDIC had to be bailed out as a private agency of the government. So where did the Treasury get the money? Well the Federal Reserve prints it of course ...Now we all know the Federal Reserve is NOT owned by the Federal Government but rather by a consortium of private bankers who control essentially our supply of money in this country. Now of course this currency they control is a fiat currency backed by nothing except a promise. A promise from who? The government!! The same government who is 16 trillion dollars in debt and who can't stop spending, borrowing and propping things up they created or want to control. So..... we (the people who work) pay interest on that debt and new spending programs via taxes.... and therefore taxes need to be raised etc.. etc. because the government needs more money to pay to monitor even more regulations and to set up more programs that won't work. and so on

You cannot borrow your way into safety or prosperity. and you can't print enough money to keep things like the FDIC solvent. At some point a broke government can't continue (think Greece on a much bigger scale) and thing start to implode and more control is needed by a military type force to keep things from chaos. What eventually emerges from a police state is some sort of chapter from George Orwell's "1984" It is possible this could happen sooner rather than later...If things get that bad in my lifetime then having a few guns won't help protect me from a "Big Brother" government. In the meantime I want to be armed for a variety of reasons and won't acquiesce my constitutional right to have them in my home.

Nickagenta ...thank you for your reply but unintentionally it was a bit insulting.

Quote

I respect that. And while I do not know you or where you have lived, you did say you live in kansas and was from the Ozarks. Sp perhaps you haven't a lot of experience with good government.

Kansas state government works much better than the Federal government you seem to value so much (not a high bar to jump over I know) This better performance is from a fiscal standpoint so you should perhaps check that out if you so desire.

Kansas is not a poverty state by any stretch of the imagination. A majority of Kansas citizens do quite well. I am proud to say Kansas recently turned down Federal government assistance to jumpstart Obamacare in Kansas. This money we turned down was to help start a Health Care Exchange ....As a related side note I was invited to be a member of the Kansas committee to investigate the formation of a state based and state run health care exchange due to my 20 + years in health care. It was a disaster from the start as state government employees having a limited understanding of real health care issues immediately got mired down in their inefficient world of regulation, politics and just ignorance on how to get something up and running effectively. Lots and lots of meetings and zero results. Spent lots of taxpayer money though.

Trust me, Nickagenta I have had plenty of exposure to government but none of it impressive.

Earlier in my career I was a lead finance negotiator for Boeing (in Kansas) and I negotiated (as part of team) with the Air Force on the B1-Bomber Program and the B-52 OAS/CMI program. In this job I also dealt extensively with the Governments military auditing contracting agency - the DCAA ( Defense Contract Audit Agency).

I was often quoted as saying (as were others) that the only entity who I saw who were lass competent in doing things efficiently than Boeing in building military airplanes was the Air Force and the DCAA in trying to say what they really wanted and needed and how they should be built. They (Air Force negotiators and DCAA) wasted more time changing their mind and instituted more stupid regulations than Boeing could keep up with. This is why you end up with the famous $2,000 toilet seats you hear about.

So I have lots of experience and exposure with government.

Finally my father worked for the government for many years and retired early at the age 47. Why? Because they were driving him nuts in how he did his job of designing, redesigning, and setting up Post Offices across the midwest in the 1960's. The good thing is that they paid him so well and gave him such good retirement benefits that he could retire at 47. He retired to the Ozarks built a new house on a beautiful lake and worked part time to supplement his early retirement income provided by the government at taxpayer expense. And yes we all wore shoes and we didn;t make moonshine.

In retrospect the government should never have provided my father such great retirement health care and benefits for an early retirement. But they waste money like this everyday and in a billion/trillion ways different ways.

I will never convince either one of you about the value of limited government. To me, something other than a very limited small government is a direct path to socialism. You of course can't convince me of your beliefs in so much faith in government including the government taking more and more control of things like guns....not sure why I even came in here to bother and discuss... waste of time ....thank you though

Well I completely apologize as it was never my intent to insult you. Obviously from your experience, government hasn't been something you feel you can trust. It's inefficiency bothers you. I can understand that. It bothers me as well.

But I trust government more than big business. The government, though frustratingly inefficient and maddening in the way they operate, i find, is still more trustworthy than big business and has the best interest of all Americans in mind and not just those they employ or are invested in their company.

I too have had a lot of experience in government. And I have seen many poor children get excellent public schools educations and go on to be successful people. I have seen the government provide scholarships and grants to go to further their education and become doctors and lawyers and engineers and other jobs that help propel this great society we have. I have seen the government provide grants to law enforcement to reduce domestic violence and rape, two of the most under reported and heinous crimes there are.

I don't like big or small government and prefer efficient government. And while I think the government has their collective heads stuck up their collective asses way too often, I still trust our government to make our way of life and society better.

Therefore, I would trust them in controlling guns. Every state has a registry or department of motor vehicles. Every state, city, town and county has a tax collection office. These areas are pretty efficient along with law enforcement, at regulating what they need to, keeping track of data and enforcing and collecting the money needed.

If they can handle keeping track of cars and taxes, they can handle keeping track of guns.

Our country was founded on the idea that the government is supposed to be "by the people and for the people." Unfortunately, I agree that it often seems that this is not the case. This can be very frustrating for the citizens, but I still believe in the concept, and believe that the only way we can begin to reform our country is if the citizens don't get so frustrated that they give up on the idea that the government is indeed ours.

The conservative columnist on Monday told Fox News host Sean Hannity that the country had a “demographic problem” because “white populations” in the U.S. and Belgium had the same low murder rate.

“As you know, I just got back from England,” Coulter explained. “On the gun crimes, we keep hearing how low they are in Europe and, ‘Oh, they’re so low and they have no guns.’ If you compare white populations, we have the same murder rate as Belgium.”

“So, perhaps, it’s not a gun problem, it is a demographic problem, which liberals are the one are pushing, pushing, pushing, ‘Let’s add more [African-American mass murderer] Colin Fergusons and more whoever the [Muslim] guy was who shot up Fort Hood.’ Why are they coming in to begin with?”

“It’s when you have a home invasion that you need a large-capacity magazine, especially if you are a female who isn’t constantly at the gun range,” she opined.

104 people were killed over 18 years in Australia due to mass shootings. The reforms cost at least $500 million, and restricted the rights of millions of citizens. I think there's an argument that $500 million to save less than 6 lives per year isn't the best use of state resources. Isn't there a more cost-effective means, whether through education or some other means, to save six lives per year?

104 people were killed over 18 years in Australia due to mass shootings. The reforms cost at least $500 million, and restricted the rights of millions of citizens. I think there's an argument that $500 million to save less than 6 lives per year isn't the best use of state resources.

While I agree in principle, I would find it infinitely better spent than money studying and protecting, for example, endangered species.

(If we could know with certainty that the life potentially saved was someone close to us, it would be infinitely more acceptable.)

104 people were killed over 18 years in Australia due to mass shootings. The reforms cost at least $500 million, and restricted the rights of millions of citizens. I think there's an argument that $500 million to save less than 6 lives per year isn't the best use of state resources.

While I agree in principle, I would find it infinitely better spent than money studying and protecting, for example, endangered species.

(If we could know with certainty that the life potentially saved was someone close to us, it would be infinitely more acceptable.)

Sure, on an individual level, we're all going to want the government to spend as much money as possible. However, at some point you need to make tough decisions.

Look at it in our own lives. The absolute safest thing on the highways for ourselves and our families would be to drive a tank. That would essentially eliminate the risk of death. However, we don't do that because it's just not a good use of money for most of us to buy a tank.

As for endangered species, I disagree. One (or six) human lives generally aren't worth the cost of an entire species to me.